Met parking PC / DCB legal from 2018

qwertyoffice

Thank you Uncle Tom!

Here is the amended version......

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b3YMAoCB2BlMnBrJIIbvBpjrn8Jtx5Q4/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

It this ok now please? 

UncleThomasCobley

If the amended PoC were received in time, then the amended paras #2 and #3 do not apply anymore. If not, then they still apply.

Coupon-mad

qwertyoffice said:

Coupon-mad said:

Also your words about the Chan case aren't the ones I wrote in the link I gave you.

And the Chan paragraphs and strike out images of other cases should come higher up than any facts.

I don't understand this as I have copied it exactly from the defence that @Rorythoperr uploaded, which you approved?

I have done the other changes....

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zugnidBXmQi31en8x22U2GS0cMgmsZ1/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

If you look at my reply I gave you a link to my preferred wording.  But if you have amended POC you can't rely on the CEL v Chan case anyway.

qwertyoffice

I have not received any other PoC, I have only received the claim form as first posted.

@Coupon-mad I still cannot see any other wording, the link you provided goes straight to the bit I copied it from. 

So is my defence good enough to send now please? 

Coupon-mad

I don't understand why posters are just blindly copying this bit from Rory's 4 figure case and thinking it's OK for theirs:

6.  The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract (there is just a date range - only two dates stated - and no specifics whatsoever);
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;
and
(d) how the purported and unspecified extra 'monies relating to the parking charges' arose and the breakdown of the extortionate quantum of almost two thousand pounds. 

Coupon-mad

I'm becoming wary to suggest any defence example now, because more than one poster isn't reading Rory's case and no-one appears to be taking any steps to adapt it to suit, by removing the obviously irrelevant stuff such as 'TWO THOUSAND POUNDS'.

Links aren't given to be copied blindly.

It's not a template 'one size fits all' to point people to look at what someone else put. That's just how Rory's case was written and it requires reading and editing.  I supply it merely to give you an idea of what to put.

It remains your case to read, understand and adapt to suit; your defence to get right for your case.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I'm becoming wary to suggest any defence example .................. 

It is also true of WS exemplars and I usually point out that they are just examples for format and style and NOT content but still C&P goes on!

qwertyoffice

Ok sorry I missed this, I admit I am a copy and paster as almost all of the defence goes well over my head and I do not understand any of it, just that you guys are experts and the defence works!

However I have now opened my mail after returning from holiday and I have been sent the evidence uploaded below.
So I guess this defence template will not work anymore and I need to draft a new one and have it submitted by Monday?

This claim is over 5 years old so it is hard to remember what happened.
The vehicle was parked in a pick up bay as I was picking up my elderly mother.
But you have to pay for your parking prior to leaving otherwise the barrier will not open.

Looking at the signs they have sent pictures of, there is no mention about how long you are allowed in the pick up bay.

Any help is much appreciated, thank you.

Umkomaas

However I have now opened my mail after returning from holiday and I have been sent the evidence uploaded below.
So I guess this defence template will not work anymore and I need to draft a new one and have it submitted by Monday?

Not sure what you mean? If you've already submitted your defence to the CNBC (formerly CCBC), that's it, you can't submit a new one (well not without a stiff fee).  The template defence isn't meant to be a magic bullet to achieve a cancellation 'by return'. It is designed (along with a subsequent Witness Statement) to place before a judge at a hearing, which you need to attend. Luckily in your case, DCB Legal are involved and will likely discontinue at some stage before a hearing. But, you must not rely on this because in this game, leopards really can change their spots. 

UncleThomasCobley

You are showing us pictures of the vehicle "parked" in a "loading" area for at least 17 minutes. However, the letter you show is about not being parked in a marked bay, which is, technically, correct. However, you somehow assume that the template defence is now invalid? Why do you think that?

As the PoC in the claim are in breach of CPR16.4 and PD16, you should still see this thrown out at allocation stage if you use the CEL v Chan judgment as a preliminary matter. As for the rest, I really don't care because it is fairly obvious that the driver really wasn't bothered about parking in a loading bay for at least 17 minutes.

If you haven't yet submitted your defence, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd October to do so. If you have already submitted it, then it's too late to change anything unless you want to pay £108 for the privilege.